Diogenes:What's funny is that disingenuously using Jews and antisemitism to scare people into voting for him is antisemitic in and of itself.

"Those suckers will believe anything if you toss the Holocaust in there."

That was our reaction around here. That, and 'Seriously, can't they shut up about Jews and Israel? I mean, seriously there's a whole campaign and so many issues going on. Leave us alone for five minutes'.

ecmoRandomNumbers:I hate both these guys so much, I really don't know which one to root for. No matter who wins, he still has to be slaughtered by Obama.

True, but it's going to be ugly. Over $30 million was spent in Florida over the last 10 days, and 92% of it was negative. In the general election each candidate will have close to a billion dollars... I get sick just thinking about what we're in for.

Tatsuma:Diogenes: What's funny is that disingenuously using Jews and antisemitism to scare people into voting for him is antisemitic in and of itself.

"Those suckers will believe anything if you toss the Holocaust in there."

That was our reaction around here. That, and 'Seriously, can't they shut up about Jews and Israel? I mean, seriously there's a whole campaign and so many issues going on. Leave us alone for five minutes'.

Could you guys get some newspaper editors to come over here and spread that sentiment around? Cuz right now you keep letting all the derp out.

James!:sweetmelissa31: To be fair... as much as I can't stand Newt... I've met many Holocaust survivors in my day and most of them weren't Kosher. My grandparents, who were Kosher all their lives, get Meals on Wheels now and don't care that it isn't Kosher.

Are they not concerned that the Jewish God Kabbala will send them to Jewish hell?

/I don't know much about religion.

Failing to keep dietary prohibitions is more "naughty" than acctually "bad;" much less "evil." I know of at least one instance where bacon saved a jewish holocaust survivor. Which just goes to show bacon doesn't hold a grudge. It's there whenever you want, or need it.

Philip Francis Queeg:Amos Quito: FTA: "Their plan was to instead bus in kosher food from other locations. The bill Romney vetoed would have given an additional $600,000 in funding to nursing homes, therefore making it possible for them to continue cooking kosher food on site."

This may sound hearltess and cruel, but the truth is, keeping such a facility up to kosher snuff is no simple matter.

In order to properly "cook kosher on site", you need a "$upervised" kitchen, and either all food served must meet kosher standards, or you need two completely separate kitchens (separate cookware, etc) and assurances that no cross "contamination" might occur.

Needless to say, kosher can be co$tly.

Better that those who demand such standards stay in facilities where they won't be bothered by those that like cheeseburgers.

So you are saying that the Jewish folks should live in separate, but equal, facilities?

No, I'm saying that non-kosher cooking facilities are entirely incompatible with the demands of kosher. The possibility of "contamination" makes it impractical for them to share the same kitchen, as even a small "offense" can render the whole place treif, or "unfit".

The requirements for keeping a kitchen kosher are insanely rigorous. And at Passover? Forget it.

So for practical purposes, unless you intend to force EVERYONE to eat kosher food, you either need two entirely separate kitchens - or - separate facilities.

In any case, I fail to see why taxpayers should foot the bill for those who follow the dietary demands of any silly religious superstition.

Amos Quito:Philip Francis Queeg: Amos Quito: FTA: "Their plan was to instead bus in kosher food from other locations. The bill Romney vetoed would have given an additional $600,000 in funding to nursing homes, therefore making it possible for them to continue cooking kosher food on site."

This may sound hearltess and cruel, but the truth is, keeping such a facility up to kosher snuff is no simple matter.

In order to properly "cook kosher on site", you need a "$upervised" kitchen, and either all food served must meet kosher standards, or you need two completely separate kitchens (separate cookware, etc) and assurances that no cross "contamination" might occur.

Needless to say, kosher can be co$tly.

Better that those who demand such standards stay in facilities where they won't be bothered by those that like cheeseburgers.

So you are saying that the Jewish folks should live in separate, but equal, facilities?

No, I'm saying that non-kosher cooking facilities are entirely incompatible with the demands of kosher. The possibility of "contamination" makes it impractical for them to share the same kitchen, as even a small "offense" can render the whole place treif, or "unfit".

The requirements for keeping a kitchen kosher are insanely rigorous. And at Passover? Forget it.

So for practical purposes, unless you intend to force EVERYONE to eat kosher food, you either need two entirely separate kitchens - or - separate facilities.

In any case, I fail to see why taxpayers should foot the bill for those who follow the dietary demands of any silly religious superstition.

Tickle Mittens:James!: sweetmelissa31: To be fair... as much as I can't stand Newt... I've met many Holocaust survivors in my day and most of them weren't Kosher. My grandparents, who were Kosher all their lives, get Meals on Wheels now and don't care that it isn't Kosher.

Are they not concerned that the Jewish God Kabbala will send them to Jewish hell?

/I don't know much about religion.

Failing to keep dietary prohibitions is more "naughty" than acctually "bad;" much less "evil." I know of at least one instance where bacon saved a jewish holocaust survivor. Which just goes to show bacon doesn't hold a grudge. It's there whenever you want, or need it.

Philip Francis Queeg:Amos Quito: Philip Francis Queeg: Amos Quito: FTA: "Their plan was to instead bus in kosher food from other locations. The bill Romney vetoed would have given an additional $600,000 in funding to nursing homes, therefore making it possible for them to continue cooking kosher food on site."

This may sound hearltess and cruel, but the truth is, keeping such a facility up to kosher snuff is no simple matter.

In order to properly "cook kosher on site", you need a "$upervised" kitchen, and either all food served must meet kosher standards, or you need two completely separate kitchens (separate cookware, etc) and assurances that no cross "contamination" might occur.

Needless to say, kosher can be co$tly.

Better that those who demand such standards stay in facilities where they won't be bothered by those that like cheeseburgers.

So you are saying that the Jewish folks should live in separate, but equal, facilities?

No, I'm saying that non-kosher cooking facilities are entirely incompatible with the demands of kosher. The possibility of "contamination" makes it impractical for them to share the same kitchen, as even a small "offense" can render the whole place treif, or "unfit".

The requirements for keeping a kitchen kosher are insanely rigorous. And at Passover? Forget it.

So for practical purposes, unless you intend to force EVERYONE to eat kosher food, you either need two entirely separate kitchens - or - separate facilities.

In any case, I fail to see why taxpayers should foot the bill for those who follow the dietary demands of any silly religious superstition.

Ahh, so not "Separate but equal" but "Gentiles only".

Got it.

No, as one poster pointed out earlier, many (most?) Jews don't give a shekel about ancient Jewish dietary superstitions.

Does anyone have that pick from Fox News that shows how the candidates were polling in Iowa? The one where they "accidentally" put Obama's face over the "Romney" caption while the rest of them had the correct glamour shots?

King Something:Does anyone have that pick from Fox News that shows how the candidates were polling in Iowa? The one where they "accidentally" put Obama's face over the "Romney" caption while the rest of them had the correct glamour shots?

Tatsuma:Oh and the worst thing about this is that Romney's veto was actually overturned, which means that no, Holocaust survivors were not in any way forced halal pig thanks to Taxomney McMormoncare

But he vetoed it nonetheless. So, the "worst thing" about this is what, exactly? That Romney is getting called out for something he actually tried to do? You have got to be the most disingenous Farker I have ever seen - anybody else does anything that even approaches the point of offending your ethno-religious sensibilities and they're Kapos and Nazis.

But Romney gets a pass?

Why you shilling? Certainly not because of any concern for the USA, lol.

Captain_Ballbeard:You have got to be the most disingenous Farker I have ever seen - anybody else does anything that even approaches the point of offending your ethno-religious sensibilities and they're Kapos and Nazis.

James!:sweetmelissa31: To be fair... as much as I can't stand Newt... I've met many Holocaust survivors in my day and most of them weren't Kosher. My grandparents, who were Kosher all their lives, get Meals on Wheels now and don't care that it isn't Kosher.

Are they not concerned that the Jewish God Kabbala will send them to Jewish hell?

ecmoRandomNumbers:I hate both these guys so much, I really don't know which one to root for. No matter who wins, he still has to be slaughtered by Obama.

I personally do not root for Newt on the basis that Obama would merk him in an election because that operates under the assumption that Newt would compete fairly. I don't want him anywhere near a ballot.

Impasse:King Something: Does anyone have that pick from Fox News that shows how the candidates were polling in Iowa? The one where they "accidentally" put Obama's face over the "Romney" caption while the rest of them had the correct glamour shots?

and for those who are interested, the Torah says 'That you should live [by those commandments]', meaning that your life has priority except in three situations, and you are allowed to break Torah to save it. Not just allowed, but mandated to, in fact.